that's the best you got? lol.
5/30/2010 9:53:32 PM
I never said your interpretation wasn't valid.I just think it's amusing you are so confident that it's the only, one right interpretation, when this is self-evidently not the case.
5/30/2010 10:23:01 PM
only, it is. it makes no logical sense to interpret it otherwise. why would they split up the reference to the "benefit" like that. it really makes no sense that way, dudefurther, it makes no sense that one could bribe an official with an AG or cabinet post legally, but not some minor weak-ass position, based solely on whether Congress had any part in making the position. really, you are grasping at straws.and, if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could point out that the President's appointees are paid via the budget. which is passed by... you guess it. an act of Congress.]
5/30/2010 10:49:05 PM
5/31/2010 11:52:34 AM
5/31/2010 8:07:43 PM
6/3/2010 10:46:04 AM
Obama Grille House Bribes Sestak with Beef Steak?
6/3/2010 12:10:42 PM
It probably should be pointed out that Romanoff applied for the position before starting his Senate run - before the offer was made.[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM. Reason : Romanoff not Sestak]
6/3/2010 3:23:15 PM
Unfortunately the reality of both situations (both Sestak and Romanoff) is not going to be reported on because the White House has done such a piss poor job of getting out ahead of the story. Both of them for that matter. And Rahm is doing just a bang up job with this stuff... He's probably not going to last that much longer
6/3/2010 3:35:37 PM
my die-hard, republican dad is convinced that this will be Obama's watergate. I was like i asked him if he actually gave a shit about the "crime" or if only enjoyed the scandal. he said "of course i do! this shit is important!" i didn't believe him.the end.[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason : All I gotta say is Dont Blame Valerie Plame ]
6/3/2010 4:03:52 PM
is your dad aware that every president ever has done this?
6/3/2010 4:16:18 PM
I'm not reading the thread or researching anything. Can someone just tell me if this is illegal. Thanks in advance.
6/3/2010 4:21:00 PM
Yes illegal, even if this does happen all the time.
6/3/2010 4:23:25 PM
I will bet money that every president since George Washington has done something like this. Well, except maybe William Henry Harrison, but I'm sure he would have done something like it if he'd lived long enough to do anything.It's dubious ethically and legally, sure, but it would be pretty lame to hang the dude out to dry for shit everybody pulls all the time.
6/3/2010 5:01:28 PM
6/3/2010 6:20:54 PM
I heard it on NPR around 5:15. Just sayin
6/3/2010 9:57:06 PM
6/3/2010 10:38:18 PM
I don't think this is a big deal... I think its about equivalent to the controversy over those attorneys that got fired during Bush's administration.But turnabout is fair play so let's get it on! Politics is politics and cheap shots will be taken by both sides. When those shots are taken, the other side will always scream bloody murder
6/4/2010 2:31:25 AM
JCASHFAN, The idea that Democrats still worship Obama like a god is a misconception typically held by future Mitt Romney voters. I would say that honey moon ended sometime last year (probably around the time Dems had to scale back ambitions on health care reform).
6/4/2010 8:06:18 AM
Looks like the position offered was an executive branch position that is not provided for by act of congress. As such, doesn't look like there would be any merit to a special counsel investigation. May fail the smell test, but doesn't look illegal under the statute cited.
6/4/2010 2:23:36 PM
6/4/2010 5:26:08 PM
I might agree the statute's wording could be confusing, but I disagree with you. If you look in the next section of the US Code you might find the drafters did a better job of conveying the meaning of the text. The meaning trying to be conveyed is actually fairly common in the US Code.
6/4/2010 7:31:09 PM
not at all. 601 is directly protecting US gov't workers. that they are that explicit in 601 shows that in this section only the benefit is what is being referenced.and that makes sense. Federal gov't workers shouldn't be threatened for political activities.
6/4/2010 11:56:50 PM
No offense, but that makes little sense. Cabinet officials are US government workers. Looks like 601 is just an anti-patronage statute. Not to mention, the only difference in the language of each is the addition of "special consideration" in obtaining any such benefit in section 600. The addition of the "special consideration portion expands section 600 to include not only the benefit, but also special consideration in obtaining the benefit--thus, there is a difference in the construction--enter the comma. My final point: It seems that if your interpretation was correct then "other" would not need to be included before "benefit." Looks like benefit is there way of making the statute inclusive--over-inclusive if you ask me. They even go further by not only including "other" benefits (besides compensation, appointments, positions, and contracts), but also "special consideration in obtaining any such benefit."Either way, we shall see. My money is on no fault found.[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]
6/5/2010 12:51:23 AM
6/8/2010 7:01:31 PM